Olympus 75mm F1.8 for Micro Four Thirds gets $900 price-tag

Olympus has released more details about the M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 lens it announced alongside the E-M5, back in January 2012. The relatively compact large-aperture lens offers a 150mm-equivalent field-of-view and a fast internal-focus design. The 75mm will be available from 'Summer 2012' at an expected selling price of around $899.99.

The M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75mm f1.8’s nine-blade circular aperture unit delivers beautiful defocused backgrounds, while the high-quality optical design keeps the subject in sharp focus. This is due to an advanced optical design that incorporates 10 lens elements in nine groups that make extensive use of special glass materials, including three ED (Extra-low Dispersion) elements to optimally correct aberrations. Each lens element is polished to an ultra-high level of working precision, only possible with the progressive techniques developed by Olympus master craftsmen, and carefully assembled to ensure maximum accuracy and reliability. Olympus’s exclusive ZERO (ZUIKO Extra-low Reflection Optical Coating) lens coatings are applied to the elements to reduce reflectance to a level that is half that of conventional coatings.

With a total length of just 2.7 inches, the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75mm f1.8 is surprisingly small and maximizes the performance and portability of the Olympus PEN and OM-D compact system cameras. A textured metallic outer finish exudes quality and sophistication, while the large 50mm diameter glass front lens conveys a sense of power and performance.

The optional LH-61F Lens Hood and the LC-61 Lens Cap metallic lens accessories are designed exclusively for the M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75mm f1.8. The LH-61F Lens Hood attaches with an outer friction knob system that allows attachment or removal even when the lens cap is attached.

U.S. Pricing and AvailabilityThe Olympus M.ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 75mm f1.8 High-Grade Portrait Lens will be available in summer 2012.

Comments

For those in doubt, check the samples online. This is a lens capable of excellent results, pin-sharp wide-open and with a beautiful bokeh, combined with it's gorgeous build quality and small size. For those who can afford, it will no doubt be a treasured possession that will bring them many wonderful images and for those who can't, there is always the 45mm which is also a fine lens.

People who desire a small, very high quality system will be pleased and even though I can't get one right now, it's good to know that Olympus is making excellent lenses, not just good ones, as the whole point of a prime is to capture as good an image as possible. Who knows, perhaps a brighter, f/0.95 version will come in the future, but it will be heavier and more expensive. It will be a different lens. The isolating powers of this are already unique in this system.

I ctrl + F to search the word "element" there are 6 results, 5 of them in the post. Searching "equivalent" and there are 69 results. Oh and you know what, that's just the first page of commenting.

Wonder if this post is to discuss about the lens, its performance and its availability or just an equivalence feast for trolls, feel kind of sad... To make sure that this one don't become useless, may I ask when will Oly put this lens on Amazon?

This is a 75mm f1.8. It has the DOF of a 75mm f1.8. Its NOT a 150mm lens (Duh) Let me say it again. Its not a 150mm lens. This lens will produce the SAME DOF of a 75mm on a Pentax Q, u4/3, full frame, MF, LF or your kitchen wall. A 75mm will always be a 75mm. Do you get the picture? The image circle of this lens will over a u4/3 full frame.Don't compare it to a 150mm because its not one. This is not that advanced...

I think this is getting blown way out of proportion. The people who are going to buy this lens will know full well how and why to use it, regardless of all this equivalency/DOF mumbo-jumbo. Everyone else can just eat grass. The people who are most bent out of shape over the equivalency/DOF/pricing/look/size/shape of this lens were probably never going to buy it anyways. It's all just white noise.

the company made it for those who are clear in their minds about its purchase and its use.

leica users pay thousands of dollars for their leica brand lenses knowing that those are manual focus only; because they know this is the best leica has to offer for the M series thats why they do not complain, neither in real life, nor in forums.

for a proper photographer, equivalency and format conversions matter less and 'image-making' matters more. the art is what matters more to them, not the 75 or 150, .6 or .55 mumbo-jumbo...

let this lens arrive, kids will see with their own eyes what this lens is designed for and what its output is like. they will figure it all out in black and white.

Focal length is not an angle of view and an ƒ-number is not a depth of field. The same lens has different depths of field on different formats, because depth of field relates to the scale, which is a result of the angle of view, which is clearly different on different format.

75/1.8 on 4/3 has the same angle of view and depth of field (and therefore image noise) as 150/3.6 on a 36x24mm sensor. It is really simple. Same angle of view, same aperture (not ƒ-number), and same shutter speed always gives the same image. You just don't understand it, stop confusing other people.

It also has the same AOV and exposure characteristics of a 150 1.8 on FF. Noise might have been a factor several years ago, but with today's sensors, twice nil is still nil, until you get into the very high ISO's, above 6400.

Unlike APS, 4/3 is not a crop of a larger image, The lenses have an image circle optimized to the sensor, so light is not being thrown away by an excessively large image circle.

I love how people like to just set their own prices for products in the market! LOL. Ridiculous. These people certainly have self-absorbed delusions of grandeur. I don't think these people have ever run their own business or ever worked in manufacturing or have ever sat in on product development meetings, etc. They just live in their own fantasy world where they-- and they alone-- know what prices "should" be for sufficient profitability. LOL. Cuckoo!

@technotic - yes, in the real world, high quality, well-constructed products made with good materials do tend to cost more. No shame in that! I can think of a *lot* of products in the real world that sell for higher prices because they are "a good looker" as opposed to being cheap, ugly cr@p. Maybe you're a "cheap, ugly cr@p" kinda guy, but there are a lot of people who take a bit more pride in owning nicer stuff and are willing to pay a bit more to do so.

The reason is that many people are judging the price compared to full frame f/1.8 rather than f/3.6.I know f/3.6 is big enough for many people and it is for me too but that doesnt mean they should be overcharging for it.

@malcolm82, grow up. A lot of these full frame f/1.8 lenses you speak of have been in the market for years and so have recouped their development costs many times over, sell to a much larger market, and benefit from greater economies of mass production. We have to remember that m4/3 is still a relatively *small* market, and *small* markets typically mean *small* production volumes, which increases the cost of products. Also, I'm sure that Oly realizes that this particular focal length isn't going to be a huge seller because a 150mm equiv. prime isn't exactly a *must have* focal length for many people, which makes its production volume even less. All these things factor into the price of a product. But to children like malcolm82, it's all about "overcharging." LOL.

Everybody seems so concern about depth-of-field control, then why bother with FF?? Go get a nice digital medium format back, or even better, a 4x5 or an 8x10 camera and you will see what real DoF control is. And guess what, you can get pretty shallow depth of field with any 1.4 lens in this format if you know how to work around it.

if you have ever used a medium format camera you should know that cannot have the same freedom to control image quality or depth of field as 35mm format.

the standard fast prime lens for medium format is about 80/2.8, this translates into 50/1.7 equivalent on 35mm and becomes a cheap handy lens for 100 or 200 US (not bad though).

actually the format size has less to do with IQ and DoF, it's the aperture size (in diameter for a certain angle of view) that controls everything from the amount of light, DoF, DLA, ... anything you name that is affected by the aperture, regardless of the format size, except we cannot help too small format cameras limited by a physical wall of f/0.5 (in practical we will have problems before that).

@yabokkie, believe it or not, different people choose different formats for different reasons. For best DOF control, I use FF. For best compactness, I use m4/3. I don't expect my FF gear to be as compact as my m4/3 gear, and I don't expect my m4/3 gear to give as much DOF control as my FF gear. Each has its pros and cons.

@yabokkie, large format lenses have apertures of f/5.6 f/6.3 ans sometimes f/8.0, yet they give bokeh and dof that practically sets standards for DOF, even at f/8, the bokeh (the look) of a large format beats any other lenses (or format's) look.

when was the last time people complained about the insanely high price of the 200 f/2's from canon and nikon? and by the way, what is full frame? 35mm? if so, then what is medium format? larget format? double frame and quadruple frame?

for the micro four thirds cameras, the 75mm f/1.8 is what olympus has offered as a fast telephoto portrait lens, just like nikon and canon have for their formats, the 135 f/2.0's :)

I never realized a new release of a micro 4/3 product could produce the reactions I'm reading here. It's not just the stupid equivalence theories, it's also the number of trollers that come around whenever Olympus issues a new body or lens.Olympus has a long tradition on innovative products: the original Pen line introduced half-frame to the world; the OM series set the standards for all future SLRs; they created the first entirely digital camara when all others were analogue bodies with a sensor thrown in; and they - and Panasonic - created the micro 4/3 format. They started something; in a stagnant world, where cameras were confined to marginal evolutions, they dared to be once again innovative. And they were successful: they put mirrorless cameras under the spotlight, and this new format is evolving and catching up with the DSLR competition - hence the hate comments from all these fanboys.Olympus has a rich history of great lenses, and they're back in the game. Way to go Olympus!

Agree... people spend too much time in this place discussing equivalences that it looks more like a math forum than a photography forum. 1.4 is 1.4, period. The only difference is in terms of depth of field and that´s all. TOO much science, and very little art!

two lenses at the same f-number will result same brightness on the sensor. this brightness is measured at a unit area.

but if you look at a unit area on sensors of different formats, you will never see the same image if the angle of view is the same. if you see an eye in a unit area of a 35mm sensor, you will see half face in same area of a 4/3 camera.

so by saying 1.4 is 1.4, you state that an eye on 35mm have the same image quality as a half face on 4/3. this is not unreasonably wrong but why not simply tell that eye-to-eye, 35mm have two stops advantage at the same f-number, or the IQ will be the same if you stop 35mm down to double the f-number, and if you do this, DoF will also be the same.

A 75mm f1.8 lens magically has different specs when placed on different camera bodies. You would think that this lens would remain a 75mm f1.8 lens when placed on an 8x10 view, 4x5, 645 or a 135 camera body. But it doesn’t. The Equivalents tell us that on a 135 camera body this lens is magically physically transformed into a 75mm f3.5 lens.

Does that mean a FF mount 75mm f1.8 lens become a 75mm f0.9 Equivalent when placed on a m4/3 body? I like the idea of magic Equivalent lenses.

Guys, a 2x crop factor doesn’t change the physical size of a lens or magically create an Equivalent aperture or Equivalent depth of field. The f1.8 maximum aperture is relative to the focal length of the lens, not the area of the film/sensor plane. The physical size of the glass or the aperture does not change. No matter where the lens goes, except perhaps in the Equivalent Space Time Continuum, this lens is and always will be a 75mm f1.8 lens.

Except, of course, when you're just trying to make angles of view comprehensible across different formats. Explaining compact cameras in equivalence terms is meaningless, since the buyers of those cameras are unlikely to know or care what you're talking about. Equally, knowing a compact camera's specification in comparison to a full frame camera isn't useful, since no one is going to decide to spend $2000+ dollars, rather than the $150 they originally intended.

However, being able to say that the lens offers a 28-200mm equiv field of view means you know it has a reasonable wide-angle to moderate tele zoom, which is useful. It's an industry standard because it's relatively easy to understand. The fact that it relates everything back to 135 is a bit of a red-herring - it's not about comparing other cameras to full frame digital, it's just a way of simply describing angle-of-view that makes reference back to film.

"it's not about comparing other cameras to full frame digital, it's just a way of simply describing angle-of-view that makes reference back to film."And equivalent aperture is a way of describing the actual aperture size for the given field of view which is quite an important factor in photography too and so is equivalent iso.

Focal length, f-number and iso are all irrelevant variables as far as controlling your photography is concerned. What we care about are field of view, aperture size and full sensor total exposure. If the camera's controls used numbers that described these veriables directly with the same numbers for different formats then we would not need to use equivalents. But since we already use full frame equivalent focal length numbers to describe the field of view of the lens we might as well do the same for aperture and total sensor exposure. If the camera's interfaces simply used these equivalent numbers to control the variables then there would be no confusion.

"Except, of course, when you're just trying to make angles of view comprehensible across different formats. Explaining compact cameras in equivalence terms is meaningless, since the buyers of those cameras are unlikely to know or care what you're talking about. "I think very few compact camera buyers will have any idea what focal length numbers mean and may be equally confused as to why they relate to a much bigger sensor size than the one used. Yes some who have a basic understanding can compare the specs to full frame lenses but then they could do this for equivalent aperture numbers as well, i dont see why it would be harder?"However, being able to say that the lens offers a 28-200mm equiv field of view means you know it has a reasonable wide-angle to moderate tele zoom, which is useful."And seeing that the lens offers f14-f40 equivalent aperture means you know you are restricted to much smaller apertures resulting in bad low light quality and deep depth of field.

The biggest problem with this is that it results in a huge marketing advantage for small sensors, using a bigger sensor with the equivalent lens will result in worse f-numbers to put on the lens and in the advertised specs and will lead people with a basic understanding to judge them as inferior. Compact camera's could easily be made with much bigger sensors with superior lenses with higher f-numbers and this is probably the biggest obstacle to that happening. Is the sensor size even advertised on the packaging? It seems to me that the only thing larger sensors give the manufacturers is inferior meaningless numbers to advertise.

@R Butler – it’s hard to do tongue-in-cheek equivalent without tags. Field of view equivalent is understood by most I think, but then there are those who want to multiply or divide, usually divide, everything. :-)

I am having a hard time working out what the FF equivalent of this lens would be. I am sure that info is in here somewhere, but I've scoured the comment thread and haven't been able to figure it out yet. Can anyone help me?

By equivalent - i mean this lens on a m43 body compared to a FF lense on an FF body. But ultimately you can not truly compare them due to the differences in format. What FF lens on FF produces DOF like a 3.6 but gathers light like a 1.8?

the reason is very simple. the image quality of ISO100 on a 4/3 should be about ISO400 on a 35mm camera. so

equiv DOF = f/3.6 equiv exposure = f/3.6, or the IQ won't be near.

actually at 2x the f-number, all of the characters related to aperture are the same. the reason for this is also very simple and straight forward: the apertues size (diameter or area) are the same at this setting.

simply put, 75/1.8 = 150/3.6 = near 42mm. physically there is no way a 75/1.8 lens can do better than 150/3.6 (nor it will do worse, the T-numbers may be slightly different and that's at the same order as error).

does your lightmeter say you will get the same image quality on different formats if you use the same film?

unit area doesn't work here because we have different images in that area for different formats and after all it's the result image that we are interested, not some numbers in the middle of the process.

Many have complained about the high price of Olympus E-M5 and this 75mm f/1.8. I found these prices painful too, but I will say this. I would rather that Olympus produce top quality products like these (and they are top quality I believe), than lowering their standards and make products that are soon forgotten.

Many have also complained that this E-M5 is not a real OM camera or that it does not deserve to be recognised as the digital version of the OM series. They do not understand that it is more than just the retro look. The E-M5 carries on from the the Olympus OM1 and other great OM cameras in this regard, i.e. exceeding expectations. This lens iis pretty unique as a 150mm equivalent lens. Let's hope its performance is, like the E-M5, also at the top of its class.

I believe that there is a price to pay for that extra level of performance in lenses, and that the extra bit in design, workmanship and material are worth it. Otherwise, just buy NeX lenses. :)

I mean seriously- don't you have better things to do than troll dpr product posts? I mean- do you feel threatened by other equipment that isn't canon? Do you come here to be an anonymous arm-chair internet know-it-all?

As far as shutter speed and flash are concerned the lens _IS F1.8_. Sharp isolated candid portraits in just about anyone's hands. With skill, superb candid portraits, hard to match with larger, heavier (or inferior, smaller) systems for fear of scaring subjects.

The 75/f1.8 weighs little, is easily pocketed (like your 9-18 etc.) and is lightning quick to focus. If you prefer to be a conspicuous weightlifter with wafer thin DOF (for those "disappearing ears" face shots at 1.2) that's your business

With the EM-5's eye recognition you get a versatile, compact, quality possibility that is unmatched elsewhere.In the studio it will hold its own unless you need a billboard print, in which case get a d800e.

The lens hood IS too much $$, alternatives?

We seeFOUR THIRDS is maturing as a blend of portability, unobtrusiveness and quality with an unmatched system!BRAVO, scary for others?

There's much talk about the aperture, dop, etc stuff... First of all equivalent aperture does not mean equivalent light transmission, I'm sorry but even in the same camera two 50mm lenses with the same aperture might have different light transmission characteristics, albeit similar, however, the dop values should remain the same. In the case of the FF vs APS vs m4/3, I ain't even go there... But from a dop point of view we can say that this 75mm is, from a dop perspective, equivalent to a 100mm 2.4 APS-C lens, and simiilar to a 150mm F5 lens on fullframe, only regarding to the DOP! If you don't believe it just check for yourselves http://www.dofmaster.com/doftable.html

it's an equivalent of 150/3.6 for 35mm format and 112/2.7 equivalent for APS-C (assuming 1.5x factor).

just multiply both the focal length and aperture by the factor, and you will get equivalent, indistinguishable photos.

then will you want a 150/3.6 lens for D800 or 5D3 for 900 US? you can get a 135/2L at about the same focal length and nearly two stops faster, or you can mount a 85/1.8 on D3200 and get about the same (I think better) result.

"just multiply both the focal length and aperture by the factor,and you will get equivalent, indistinguishable photos."

Not exactly correct. Yes image will look the same using the mathematics above, comaprable to FF 150 3.6, but to get the image m.43 will require less exposure time because it will behave as an F1.8, so it's low light capabilities are better. Therefore your comparison is only partly true. Ultimately its probably futile to compare different lenses on different formats.

"Not exactly correct. Yes image will look the same using the mathematics above, comaprable to FF 150 3.6, but to get the image m.43 will require less exposure time because it will behave as an F1.8, so it's low light capabilities are better. "

To get the same image m43 requires a 4x lower iso setting so the exposure time is the same. iso 200 on m43 is the same as iso 800 on full frame. As i said before iso on its own is meaningless, what matters is full sensor exposure combined not the light intensity.

I think the problem with your equivalence theory is it applies to high ISO, very low light situations, but not to low ISO situations.

Using the comparison tool, the EM-5 versus the 5D Mark III, the EM-5 is better at ISO 400 than the 5D Mark III at ISO 1600.

Comparing the EM-5 at ISO 200 to the 5D Mark III at ISO 200, and both are fine. So, if you can shoot the EM-5 at ISO 200, you are getting the advantages of the 1.8 aperture for exposure. You don't need to be shooting the EM-5 at ISO 50 - it won't create a better picture.

At ISO 3200, it's a different story. Thus, equivalent aperture only applies half the time, and is wrong half the time, just like using the base aperture.

It is a matter of which is more important to you - very high ISO, or low ISO. The less high ISO matters, the less equivalent aperture is relevant.

I don't think people realize that this is still a very compact lens! A Canon 85/1.8 measures 75mm (diam) x 71.5mm (length), and weighs 425g. This Oly measures 63.5mm (diam) x 69.5mm (length), and weighs 304g.

You also have to remember that when you put this already compact lens on an m4/3 body, you're getting a *much* more compact package than what you could get from any DSLR+lens combo!

So you are pathetically mis-informed about the "point" of this lens. It's a great lens and a great addition to the m4/3's compact interchangeable lens system.

There is no way Olympus can produce enough of this lens at launch, so naturally they will price it $100 or so more than what most of the willing customers will pay. Why? Because they are aiming for only top 5% customers that will pay extra $100 to get it early. If they can mass produce it, then it would make more sense to price it at $799, which will yield more profit for them as there will be far more willing number of customers in that price range. Since they can't.. $899 is the magic number for a maximum profit. Just look at 12mm f/2 or 45mm f/1.8 for an example.

this is a 150/3.6 equivalent on 35mm formats. since it's nearly two stops slower than 135/2L, a reasonable price should be about 1/4 or 1/3 of 135/2L, or around 300 US (plus some premium for a new lens).

another way of thinking may see the price as high asSigma 150/2.8. the lens is 2/3 stops slower but it has a Olympus brand. but since it cannot do macroit won't be worth as much (macro lenses are more expensiveat the same apture). so I'd say this lens shouldn't go beyond 500 US. I give the range of 300-500.

slow in terms of what? indeed, it is like a 150mm f/3.6 lens, but the light gathering capability is that of a f/1.8 lens. the slowness won't affect exposure, but depth of field, and that too, only slightly.

Are you using 3x2mm sensors for mobiles? Im used to thinking they use sensor sizes close to compact camera's now, i have only looked at the more expensive models though. :)I think its easyer to simply put things in crop factor, either diameter or area. An exponent of 2 isnt that intuitive for comparing, i need to derive the actual crop factor from that number to make a meaningful comparison for myself.

m4/3 already has a lot of less inexpensive lenses for less serious shooters. This is a lens for serious, higher-end users who don't mind spending more money, they just want these lenses to be available! So this lens definitely expands m4/3's reach and expands its market to serious shooters who were waiting to see serious lenses (like the 75/1.8) and serious cameras (like the E-M5) before taking m4/3 seriously.

Wow... I was set to get the OM-D and this lens this summer as my new portrait setup. This might be a deal breaker. They estimated $700-800 for this lens and I was willing to suffer, not without some griping, for 800... but that was the max. This will break it for me. I can go back to my D7000 and the 85mm 1.8 instead. Oh well... I really wanted to return to OLY. The 45mm won't cut it as I need 120 to 150 for my portraits.

That's the way I see it. The OM-D and these primes are the quality products, if you can't afford them get a poverty spec APS-C dSLR and some cheaper, slower primes to get similar results from a camera that is bulkier and less pleasant to use, but costs less.

I'm tired of this "equivalent" BS. People should do a little thinking - if they did, they'd realize this notion of "equivalent aperture" is utterly nonsensical. If such equivalence existed, f22 on this lens would translate to a mammoth f44 in 35mm terms! Besides, it would be akin to say a person's visual acuity depended on the volume of the brain. Think about it.It is curious that no one mentions "aperture equivalence" when it comes to APS-C (in that case f1.8 would be f2.7). Strange, isn't it?I would also like to see where they learned all that stuff about "equivalent aperture". Because until now I've found nothing to sustain that bizarre theory by which the size of the sensor determines the position of the iris blades... because it's the latter we're talking about when we refer to aperture.Oh, and let's not forget those who write long reports on "equivalent aperture" and, when we browse their galleries, all there is is photos of their cats!!!Sorry, no patience for trolls.

"F1.8 would become f2.1 - f2.25". Where did you get that notion? How did you reach those figures? And, assuming there was an equivalence factor for aperture (there isn't), why should it be different from crop factor - 2 X for micro 4/3, 1,5 X for Canon APS-C and 1,58 X for Sony, Nikon and Pentax? I accept anything people may claim, as long as it's well-founded. This "equivalent aperture" thing is no more than fantasy. It has no factual or scientific support. Unlike focal length, of course. Some go as far as to say there's an ISO equivalence too!

I believe that when people write about aperture equivalents, they are in actuality talking about what would achieve an equivalent depth of field with similarly framed subjects. They are not discussing about total light input.

When people write about aperture equivalents- most certainly aren't thinking about DOF equivalents. Most are trolling, beyond me as to why- other than people feeling threatened by other camera gear for some reason, and a smugness of equipment. As I always tell people "there's no FF, APS-C, 4/3 switch on a light meter. f1.8=f1.8" and "there's more to lens than shallow DOF + speed."

I suppose APS-C doesn't get that sort of treatment (when really- there isn't that much of a usable difference between APS-C and 4/3), PROBABLY because the math is easier to do with the x2 crop ;)

I haven't caught anyone trolling, but the depth of field topic deserves some thought and is perfectly legitimate. There definitely a depth of field equivalence between aperture x on APS-C and aperture y on full frame, especially if you frame the subjects equally.

Mr Roboto, let's put it this way: the other day I was reading some comments and replies from someone who believed in this "equivalence" thesis. By the end he was saying sensor area was irrelevant for depth of field, which is even sillier than "equivalent aperture". The guy was so assertive I felt prompted to browse his photo gallery here at DPR. What did I find? Six pictures of a cat, so banal they could have been taken with a mobile phone! That's how gearheads are. They don't care about photography as an artistic expression. They care about figures and measurements. And trolling, of course...

"Because until now I've found nothing to sustain that bizarre theory by which the size of the sensor determines the position of the iris blades..."Its the position of the iris blades that determines the actual size of the aperture, equivalent aperture simply refers to the lens having the same actual aperture size for a given field of view, the size of the sensor has nothing to do with it.A 50mm f/2 lens has a 25mm maximum aperture size, any lens on any sensor size with a 50mm equivalent field of view and a maximum aperture size of 25mm is equivalent to a full frame 50mm f/2 lens, do you see sensor size does not come into this at all?"By the end he was saying sensor area was irrelevant for depth of field"Again the field of view and aperture size mentioned before determines depth of field, sensor size is indeed irrelevant, on a different sensor size this fov and aperture size combination leads to a different focal length number and a different aperture ratio number.

DOF can be explained this way and if I could post a simple diagram here a light bulb would go off in your heads and there would be no arguments.

DOF is related to the aperture opening (width of the lens iris) to the distance of your subject. To simplify the maths, a lens for a FF camera has twice the aperture width for a given F-stop compared to a M4/3 camera lens - agree with me so far? Why - because the FF sensor is twice the width (measured on the diagonal). So the M4/3 at f1.8 is equivalent to FF at f3.6 and if APS-C is crop factor 1.5 (there are variations between brands) then the equivalent f-stop will be 1.8*2.0/1.5 = f2.4. Hands up who got it right!

For those who still dont understand, I will post a diagram in the M4/3 forum if there is enough interest.

"Some go as far as to say there's an ISO equivalence too!"Amazing!Lenses with the same equivalent aperture will capture the same amount of light, sensors will record that same amount of light at the equivalent iso setting.You can understand that increasing iso by 4x reduces the amount of light captured, im sure you also understand that increasing the sensor size by 4x increases the amount of light captured by the same amount, is it so hard to see that combining these will result in capturing the same amount of light? Both sensor size and iso are meaningless on their own in determining image quality, its the amount of light captured across the whole sensor that does. Indeed the basic meaning of iso does not relate to the total amount of light captured but neither does the basic meaning of focal length refer to field of view, it is only in combination with sensor size that it does and most people accept and understand the meaning of equivalent focal length. Why is this so different?

There is something about µ4/3 that brings out the trolls. I don't know if it's some sort of threatening feeling to their gear (do they also drive really expensive sports cars to feel adequate?) - but I've come to learn that DPR is a great place to learn about equipment- FROM THE STAFF. The comments are the a terrible waste of time.

There IS no "depth of field issue" except for trolls and people intent on arguing equipment instead of making quality pictures.

Measurebators someone called them.

Compactness is a BIG (pun intended) advantage.My EM-5 sits in the coat pocket easily with that new 14-42. The 40-150 in the other pocket. The little flash attached to my bum-bag strap.

If I need more, I carry other lenses and even third party ones are stabilised!

It means I can be '[prepared' without looking like a pack mule and STILL come away with good pics.

NOT so the "brick with a lens" owners. Their cameras are left behind quite often.

I am often the ONLY person in groups I'm part of, with something better than a P&S or a phone "camera". Say ... on a walk, on a hike, on a cycling trip. The EM-5 is fantastic at the theatre, or at dinner. The pattern repeats every week.

This lens will make the EM-5 formidable in the theatre + hardly noticed. I usually leave the Metz 60s behind too :)

It's funny to follow discussions going on here and on the previous story (Fujifilm launches M-mount adapter for X-Pro1's X-mount). Seems to me that M-mount owners have more to discuss than pricing and size of their equipment than these MFT people. Just saying...

It isn't the MFT people who discuss price and size. It's the people who somehow feel uncomfortable about this (relatively) new format. Only God knows why they feel that way, but I believe MFT people -as you put it - would rather be discussing this lens' merits. Unfortunately they reply to trolls, hence the huge amounts of silliness in display...And you didn't read the comments on the recent Leica announcements, did you? You'd have been impressed :)

Agreed. It isn't usually the µ4/3 users (every gear has fanboys though), it's other people from competing gear groups, or people seemingly just feeling smug with the "how quint, you have a tiny toy camera, I have FF."

There is just something about µ4/3 that brings out the worst in DPR commenters. The µ4/3 forum is a trollish nightmare of a mess too.

Wouldn't put M glass on less than full frame sensor.If you're starting fresh, then m43 and the Fuji are not far apart, particularly if you shoot for RAW files. Don't rely on the techno-babble at sites like DXOMark. Use your eyes on the files.

Yeah, it makes sense, ManuelVilardeMacedo and mister_roboto. Unfortunately I did read, Manuel. Leica's new releases (and a Summicron for 7K) don't make sense to me at all, but I guess I'm not the target. Anyway, we still have Carl Zeiss! ;)

That's nice. I could see why you wouldn't buy it- as you don't have a camera to put it on, being as how you have a NEX-5N. You totally dodged the bullet there- you almost bought a $900 lens for camera where it wouldn't mount to. GOOD JOB.

The RAW MATERIALS cost of glass, materials, mechanics and electronics is merely the STARTING point.

The MAJOR cost of any high quality optics, photo or otherwise, really starts piling up with:1. The creation, design, testing and optical engineering of a new lens formula that can achieve top levels in all the areas of optical image performance.

2. The expense of producing each element to the high tolerances and exotic shapes necessary, and precise application of multi layers of advanced anti-reflective coatings

no, i would not call it paying more. if u 'need' this lens for its focal length, its aperture and IQ, then you have to. just like those willing to shoot with perspective control, tilt-shift lenses have to pay those hefty prices. the intended use it what justifies the cost.

@shaocaholica, you can't crucify MFT for being more expensive based on just one or two lens. MFT has plenty of really nice, fast primes that are great values.

At any rate, when I wanted a fast "normal" prime for my Canon APS-C bodies that would give me the approximate equivalent of a 50mm prime on a FF body, I went and got a Canon 35/1.4L. I paid around $1300 for it. If you want something, you can either sit around whining, or you just go out and get it.

No, Ben, the additional labor costs do not account for the price difference. Costs do not increase proportionally with quality and performance, the relationship is more logarithmic. But fewer customers can afford a top-of-the-line product, so extra profit needs to be included in each unit's price.

@shaocaholica- "The point I'm making is that you're not always locked into a format so if the things you want/need for your format are too expensive then maybe you're using the wrong format."

You're preaching to the choir with me. I don't just use one format. I use Canon APS-C, Canon FF, *and* m4/3. In other words, I *didn't* lock myself into any one format.

The point is, rather than whining on internet forums, I went out and bought whatever suited my needs at the time. *And* I tried different formats, too! LOL. So as you can see, you're just preaching to the choir.

I prefer to be a photo taker, not a photo talker or a photo whiner. Sometimes you pay more, sometimes you pay less. In the long run, life is too short to sit around whining. Just pay for what you think is the best solution for you, and enjoy it!

The value of the lens will not be in the brand name or price. It will be in quality of the images produced. We won't know that for a while until after the lens comes on the market, after real world photos exist. Some people are willing to make due with ok quality; others are not, insist on the best. The market price (instead of MSRP price) will be decided by the calculations of those consumers.

dont fry me, but i just checked the prices of 'similiar' lenses on bhphotovideo.com;

Nikon 135 f/2 DC : $ 1289.00

Canon 135 f/2 : $ 1014.00

Sony 135 f/1.8 : $ 1798.00

Voigtlander Heliar 75 f/1.8 : $ 715.00

full frame shooters would obviously go for their 135mm lenses, whereas APS users can benefit from 85mm f/1,8 lenses or the higher-priced 85 f/1,4's :)

for someone who likes to stick to micro four thirds camera system for whatever reasons, it is very promising to see such a lens (with full automation of focus, aperture etc) at a price lower than $ 1000.

i think its about the same size as another 85 f/1.8 lens, so a lens that offers double the focal length in a small size does add a weight benefit at least.

i had a Nikkor 85 f/1,8 for my d7000 which i use on my ep-2 sometimes and it always gives good, interesting results (focal length equiv: 170mm)...

be it lenses or cameras, they are tools for photographers, and should be sought, bought and lusted for accordingly...

@shaocaholica, yes, obviously FF is always going to offer more DOF control. Get over it. That's not why you get into MFT. I shoot Canon FF (Canon 5D), and I've been shooting Canon FF since the film days. But I still bought an E-PM1, knowing full well that I would not be getting the same DOF control as FF. But like I said, you don't get into MFT for maximum DOF control.

I got into MFT because MFT gear is a fraction of the size and weight of any of my DSLR gear! It's now my take-everywhere camera. When I'm working, I still shoot with my Canon DSLR gear. But for everything else, I now use my MFT gear.

If you want maximum DOF control, use FF. If you want a great, compact camera system with a healthy selection of lenses that is an alternative to DSLR gear, use MFT (or some other MILC system). That's why I use both FF and MFT. FF gives max DOF control, but it's big and bulky. MFT gives awesome compactness, but you get less DOF control. Simple!

shaocaholica: Yes, it compares to a ƒ/3.5 lens on a full format camera, but in return it makes your tiny $350 camera perform like a 1kg $3000 full format camera with a 150/3.5 lens. How much is that worth?

The moral is you have to look at a certain combination of lens and camera, not just a lens on its own.

Yet again someone misses the advantage of a smaller format - you can shoot at larger apertures without losing depth of field. The current internet rage about having less depth of field as a sort of bragging right is translating into zillions of junk photos being posted which would have been dramatically improved by stopping down the lens a bit.

There will be absolutely no problem achieving massively shallow depth of field with this lens.

My reply had nothing to do with 'wanting' shallow DOF. I only wanted to point out that the original poster was comparing this lens to 135/2 FF lenses. I see the fallacies in trying to compare to FF but don't look at me, I didn't start it.

@DarkShiftYes if you want deep DOF without stopping down then this lens is for you if you can affort/justify it.

People, deep7 specifically: There is no advantage of a smaller system when it comes to depth of field. ƒ/2 on 4/3 IS THE SAME AS ƒ/4 on a 36x24mm camera, in terms of depth of field and therefore luminoux flux at the sensor. The advantage is that if that aperture is large enough for you, then you don't have to pay for and carry around a large sensor camera. The same depth of field, if available, will give the same image quality/noise on any camera system, only the ƒ-numbers and ISO sensitivities will be different.

i think it is safe to say that medium format (when used with film for coverage of the whole frame) has more depth of field than 35mm. take into account my Mamiya lenses for a second. my 90mm Sekor f/3.8 gives DOF equal to 1.9. my 180mm Sekor f/4.5 gives the DOF of f/2.2, but when i look at the 6x7 photos, they 'look' as though their DOF is richer. obviously, a full frame shooter standing next to me would laugh at how my 180mm f/4.5 (90mm f/2.2) lens is slower than his 85mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens, but the only thing i can think of is that for a "90mm like look', the only lens mamiya made for me is the 180mm f/4.5.

i also had a Nikkor 105mm f/2 DC lens, and i now own a Mamiya Sekor 210mm f/4.5 APO lens. i really liked the results of the 105 f/2 Nikkor, but have the same (even better) to say about the Sekor 210mm f/4.5 despite the slowness.

the look of a particular lens of a particular focal length has to do with the format its used with.

It's worth pointing out that the old Olympus 7-14mm f/4 was also extremely expensive, and the company sells a 300mm f/2.8 which will set you back the price of a decent used car. And both lenses are apparently excellent, so I guess you pay for quality in Olympus-land. I imagine this will outsell the aforementioned by a wide margin.

You know, what with all the financial shenanigans back then I was worried that Olympus might fold, but they seem to be bouncing back.

This lens was in the makings before any of them shenanigans tho, and there has been no change what-so-ever in the camera and optics development department they've said. And indeed new products have kept coming.

Aside from kit lenses, I don't think Olympus and Panasonic really want to compete head to head with lenses. Each seems to be taking a different path, and that's probably a good business decision for them.

And it also means that we get more unique choices.

For example... Olympus created a pretty good weather sealed kit lens (12-50mmm) and Panasonic countered with an outstanding upgrade normal zoom lens (12-35mm) which is also weather sealed. Both lenses fill a need within the M4/3 lens catalog.

A 50mm f/2.0 lens is totally unnecessary. It's way too close to a 45mm f/1.8 lens.

The prime lenses that M4/3 now needs are a 100mm f/2.8 macro, or perhaps an affordable 300mm f/4.0.

The 75mm is 50% longer and slightly faster. It costs twice as much. And it will autofocus much faster since it was designed for CDAF and it isn't a macro lens like the 50mm is. Plus, you will not need an adapter.

I have a hunch that the 75mm will will also get outstanding reviews, just like the 50mm lens got.

Bottom line... these are two different lenses for two different systems. And both are worth owning.

Interesting....all the emotion over price points and price comparisons, don't get me wrong, cost can always be a factor.....but I moved to M4/3 for the reduced weight and form factor....I was tired of hauling around SLR's and DSLR's for many years.

"Now the 75mm 1.8 is looking pretty reasonable, if not a bargin."I guess you would consider $500 f/1.4 primes for a 6x4mm sensor camera to be a real bargain too.How about some nice fast f/1 primes for a 3x2mm sensor camera for $500, even better?

@toscha_seidel I'm always amazed at those comments that seem to assume lenses will be used this or that way. I take pictures of equestrian sports, and a lens like this would be awesome. On the other hand, its not that uncommon to find myself under bad weather doing that, so, this lens being weathersealed would make lots of sense. And remember this is a supposedly top of the line lens (it better be, it costs quite a few quid), most users that are willing to pay this amount of money expect it being a "no compromise" solution for their needs - whatever those might be. Just my 2cents.

my goodness. it looks like camera makers figured if DSLR's sales are going to decline, they might as well keep the prices the same. so much for the whole "smaller lenses cost less to produce" benefit of m43...

I've been saving up so I've got the money ready for when they ship. I'm sure I won't be the only one buying.

Some times things are out of your value price range. It doesn't mean they are overpriced, just priced beyond your level of comfort for the value. I'd never pay for XM radio, Cable TV, or the premium for "organic" food. It's doesn't mean they're overpriced, just that I don't see the value for the money. But plenty of people do.

There's no point in complaining about the price. Think it's too much? Don't buy it! It's as simple as that.

In the end, the market always determines the price. If they don't sell at $899 the price will come down. However, my guess is that Olympus marketing has done their homework and they will sell very well.

because the people complaining (most) want it, lol. To me all this complaining is an indication that this is a very desirable lens', unfortunately the sticker shock was inevitable, since many bought into the system rocking the huge discounts on older bodies and kit lens'.

It's a camera system, and all camera systems make the most money from the accessories (lens' being one of them), it's the razerblade business model.

It would seem that people want olympus to give the lens' away at cost, but given Olympus' current financial situation, making some profit would be good for everyone. Wouldn't you want Olympus to be around still to build you your 150mm f/2.8, or 300mm f4? What about 400mm f/5.6? Or maybe even convert the f2 zooms to mFT?

Without them making money (profit), it's unlikely that it'll happen.

Olympus is finally kicking out some great product (EM5, 12mm, 45mm 75mm), and things are finally looking bright for them. Buy their stuff!

Sometimes I look at it this way: The lenses are the mainstay of a camera system, the camera housing is "accessories" that I change from time to time... But I never expect photography to becoma a cheap hobby :-)

Nice of Oly to make a nice fast 75f1.8! Price is a bit high but a optical good, well made metal lens ain`t cheap. The Pentax metal 77f1.8 costs near $900us...good lens. Don`t care what it is on FF since I will shoot this lens on M4/3.

Absolutely. Compare it to APS-C sensors. The new 16 mp m43 sensor is just as good as the one I used for years on the Canon 40D, even in low light. The RAW files are excellent. The only thing I'd say to qualify that is that one has to pay close attention to the exposure, just as in the old days we had to take a bit more care with transparency film over the wider latitude of print. The real advantage to m43 is in the lenses, which are small and excellent. I have the P-L 25 1.4 and the Oly 45 1.8 and would put them up there with the best of any company.

People justifying the price are saying "look how big and expensive a fast 150mm for FF would be". So that's the equivalent focal length, right. But then if someone mentions equivalent apertures, they are accused of trolling or ignorance.

That's because "equivalent aperture" doesn't exist.Curiously, the ones who write about f1.8 being equivalent to f3.6 never mention equivalence on APS-C sensors (with which f1.8 would equal f2.7). Any idea why? Is it that the concept of "equivalent aperture" only works for micro 4/3?

I don't where you have been, but we've had hundreds or thousands of discussions comparing APS-C and Full frame in the forums dealing with traditional DSLR. People discuss it all the time. The difference is that someone shooting Canon, Sony or Nikon is not hostile to the idea because their favorite brand offers multiple sizes. Canon even offers 3 large sensor sizes.

The major beef in the m4/3 discussions is that people always say things like "look how tiny that is for a 150mm f1.8!!!" When it's NOT 150mm. If you want to call it 150mm, then call it 150mm f3.6 because that's how big the aperture is and that's the look it will give.

If they launched a new APS-C 100mm f1.8, nobody would be on here comparing it to a theoretical 150mm f1.8 FF lens.

So you don't know where I've been... I must have been working. Or photographing. Or taking something good out of life instead of wasting my time discussing silly, unfounded theories on forums. Photographing and training my eyes is far more important to me than discussing f1.8 this and f3.6 that. Those things are not relevant per se, but only if they help me make better photos. I only comment when the levels of misinformation are too high for me to put up with.On the other hand, maybe I missed those marvellous topics on forums because I fell asleep. Which, given the boredom of those "equivalent aperture" arguments, is most likely to happen...

For all the equivalent lens buyers, not all glass is made the same. A Tokina 70-200 f2.8 is not the same price as a Nikon 70-200 F2.8. A Samyang 85mm f1.4 costs less than a Canon 85mm f1.4 etc etc etc.

While a smaller image circle means smaller lenses, it also requires glass of a higher spec to resolve contrast and detail on a competitive level. A perfect example of this is any 50mm f1.4 stopped to f1.8 will not have the same optical qualities as the 45mm at f1.8.

Equivalence belongs in a science classroom, not in photography. m43rds and 43rds is more than just smaller and lighter (which it is). It is consistent IQ across the frame (unlike many of the cheap lenses compared for FF here) along with excellent lens design for focusing as well.

If you want a cheaper lens, buy a cheaper lens, to all you equivalent people out there... Do you walk into a jeweler and compare a cheap diamond to a flawless one? Quality isnt always determined by measures such as Karat but go beyond.

More about gear in this article

Just Posted: Our hands-on preview of the Olympus 75mm F1.8 for Micro Four Thirds. The 75mm is Olympus' premium grade portrait lens for the joint Olympus/Panasonic mirrorless system. We've had a pre-production example in the office for a couple of days and have prepared a hands-on preview, to which we'll add a samples gallery when the promised production example arrives.

With the new breed of mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras becoming ever-more popular, manufacturers face a development dilemma. It's not enough to simply churn out camera bodies; to convince potential buyers you have an attractive system, it's essential to provide a decent range of lenses too. But lens systems are hard to establish; concentrate your design resources on affordable lenses for enthusiasts and you risk your system not appealing to the high-end users who are likesly to buy multiple lenses. Focus instead on high-end exotica, and you risk making the step up from the kit-zoom look too daunting (and expensive) for the majority of users.

Alongside its E-M5 enthusiast-class mirrorless camera, Olympus has launched the M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 and M.Zuiko Digital 60mm F2.8 Macro lens to its Micro Four Thirds lineup. It's also announced the FL-600R the latest in its range of wireless-compatible flashguns and its first to feature an LED continuous lamp for video work. The 75mm lens is a higher-end portrait lens than the existing 45mm F1.8 we rather like, and features the same solid build-quality as the premium 12mm F2.0. Meanwhile the 60mm Macro offers true 1:1 magnification and is weather-sealed to match the E-M5.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Fujifilm X-H1 is a top-of-the-range 24MP mirrorless camera with in-body stabilization and the company's most advanced array of video capabilities. We've tested the X-T2's big brother extensively to see how it performs.

Panasonic's Lumix DC-GX9 is a rangefinder-style mirrorless camera that offers quite a few upgrades over its predecessor, with a lower price tag to boot. We've spent the weekend with the GX9 and have plenty of thoughts to share, along with an initial set of sample photos.

Panasonic's new premium compact boasts a 24-360mm equiv. F3.3-6.4 zoom lens, making it the longest reaching 1"-type pocket camera on the market. We spent a little time with it; read our first impressions.

Latest buying guides

Quick. Unpredictable. Unwilling to sit still. Kids really are the ultimate test for a camera's autofocus system. We've compiled a short list of what we think are the best options for parents trying to keep up with young kids, and narrowed it down to one best all-rounder.

Landscape photography isn't as simple as just showing up in front of a beautiful view and taking a couple of pictures. Landscape shooters have a unique set of needs and requirements for their gear, and we've selected some of our favorites in this buying guide.

If you're a serious enthusiast or working pro, the very best digital cameras on the market will cost you at least $2000. That's a lot of money, but generally speaking these cameras offer the highest resolution, the best build quality and the most advanced video specs out there, as well as fast burst rates and top-notch autofocus.

Are you a speed freak? Hungry to photograph anything that goes zoom? Or perhaps you just want to get Sports Illustrated level shots of your child's soccer game. Keep reading to find out which cameras we think are best for sports and action shooting.

At this year's CP+ show in Yokohama, we sat down with senior executives from several major manufacturers, including Canon. Topics of conversation included Canon's ambitions for high-end mirrorless cameras, and the importance of responding to the demands of the smartphone generation.

We were recently able to follow local frame builder Max Kullaway as he created one of his AirLandSea bikes. Here are our picks of the photos we got, as the project progressed from bare tubes all the way to rideable bicycle.

On paper, the Sony a7 III is a tempting option for photographers who've been considering a switch to full-frame mirrorless. But how does its image quality stack up? We compare it to the Mark II and a few of its other peers.

Google Lens uses artificial intelligence and 'computer vision' to identify and provide information about businesses, landmarks and other objects using your phone's camera. And now it's available for iPhone users, too.

In the job posting, the Times' describes this role as "one of the most important and high-profile jobs in visual journalism." If you're looking for a high profile job in photojournalism, you could do a lot worse than being Photo Director at The Gray Lady.

According to a recent report out of South Korea, Samsung is increasing production of its ISOCELL image sensors in a bid towards market leadership for image sensors. To reach this goal, Samsung will have to dethrone current market leader Sony... no small task.

In this video, large format photographer Ben Horne shows off the incredible resolving power of 8x10 slide film by pixel peeping a massive 709.6-megapixel drum scan of one of his landscape shots. And you thought 100MP medium format was big...

Photographer Wendy Teal tells the heart-breaking story of a wedding she shot at a hospital on just 24-hours notice. The mother of the bride had been given one week to live, and Wendy responded to the couple's desperate social media plea for someone to capture their special day.

Syrp has announced the Magic Carpet Pro: a slider that offers filmmakers an 'infinitely extendable' range thanks to built-in track levers that let you connect lengths of track without the use of tools.

At CP+ we sat down with executives from several major manufacturers. Among them was Kenji Tanaka, of Sony, who talked to us about the a7 III as well as its plans to attract more pro shooters – without ignoring APS-C and entry-level customers.

How do you shoot macro photography on an 18x24cm large format wet plate camera? You 'connect' two large format cameras together! That's how wet plate photographer Markus Hofstaetter did it, and you can read about the whole process in this article.

The Fujifilm X-H1 is a top-of-the-range 24MP mirrorless camera with in-body stabilization and the company's most advanced array of video capabilities. We've tested the X-T2's big brother extensively to see how it performs.

Motorsports photojournalist Jamey Price recently flew to Canada with Lamborghini for the car company's Winter Accademia 2018, where clients get to drive the latest Lamborghini supercars on snow and ice. Yes... it is exactly as awesome as it sounds.

For the Pixel 2 smartphone's Motion Photos feature, Google built on its existing Motion Stills technology by adding advanced stabilization that combines software and hardware capabilities to optimize trimming and stabilization.

"After his camera was stolen from his room in the orphanage, he switched to an iPhone for his photography, reasoning that the image quality of a big, heavy camera was less important than the freedom of a cell phone. 'Quality? Screw it, I’d sketch things with a pencil if I could draw,' he wrote in a blog post."

Chinese manufacturer Vivo has announced some AI-powered Super HDR tech to compete with Google's HDR+ system. Both systems combine multiple images to create a final shot with more dynamic range and less noise, but Super HDR claims to do so more intelligently.

The 'semantic image segmentation model' categorizes every pixel in an image and assigns it a label, such as “road”, “sky”, “person” or “dog.” And now, Google has released its latest version as open source, making it available to any developers whose apps could benefit from the tech.